Applying the Law to 9/11 and Lahaina, Part One: Who Are the Perpetrators?

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

We must oppose the fantastic tricks that were installed a century ago to lower young peoples’ ability to think. Yes, someone was evil enough to do that.  But now that we have uncovered their secrets, we can do everything possible, and with utmost haste, to change tack. Anyone with vision can contribute to that.

My particular role does not consist of envisioning new stuff. I am a keeper of the flame for Law. Some of our law today is bad, yet there’s plenty of it that contains wisdom developed over centuries, from English law.  It’s worth paying attention to — throwing it out would be ridiculous.

In this series of lectures, I will show how we can apply law to the problem of “9/11 and 8/8.” Yes, I’m pretty sure it was a unified attack by the same evil people. Their targets were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2011 and the city of Lahaina, Hawaii on August 8, 2023.

Today we start with Part One, which has two sections—first, the Modes of Identifying the Perpetrators, and second, a new idea which I call ‘The Association Papers.” In a later lecture, Part Two will recount the charges that could possibly be brought against the criminals, such as US domestic laws against genocide and war crimes, and of course, treason. Part Three is about the logistics of making the law stick.

Part One: Who Are the Perpetrators of 9-11 and Lahaina?

Section 1: Modes of Identifying Them

1.1 It matters who viciously attacked the cities of New York and Lahaina. We should forcibly demand answers, from anyone who likely has information about the perpetrators of the two events.

1.2. We, a rational and responsible band of people, can draw up a list of Americans who may be able to answer our questions. (Being on that list does not imply guilt; it implies access to information.)

1.3. The giving of bullshit answers to our questions, or the refusal to answer, puts the person in the category of Supporters of the perps.  (If they don’t support the perps, there’s no reason for them to be evasive, is there?)

1.4. Being focused is important. In regard to 9-11, I think we can focus mainly on the World Trade Center hits, and the crash at the Pentagon. No need to include Shanksville as the reported deaths there seem to have been fictional. In Hawaii, focus only on Lahaina, not the other nearby fires. (This exercise has a narrow purpose; it should not invite a delving into myriad related matters.)

1.5. The goal is to punish the perpetrators. It is not to develop a philosophy, a cleanup of government, or anything else. Those things could follow later. Pinning down the perps is essential to our continued existence! Surely they have not given up their desire to hurt us.

1.6. We should go on the offensive.  We are not here to beg for crumbs from the government or from any powerful group. We are the powerful. (And the perps know it, at least most of the time when they’re not in a totally delusional state.)

1.7. Horrible things were done to citizens on 9-11 and 8-8. Never mind that it led to a “train

of abuses” after that date. For example, 9-11 led to The Patriot Act, and 8-8 has led to toxic waste that may prevent residents returning their land.  Trying to consider everything will take our eyes off the prize. Just locate the killers, OK?

1.8. In naming a suspect (but we have not got that far yet), there is danger of being sued for defamation. However, the reigning US Supreme Court precedent (NY Times v Sullivan) tells us that criticizing a public official it is not punishable as defamation, unless written from sheer malice. (The exemption has since been extended to any public players in controversial matters not just government people.)  I suggest: Keep your First Amendment rights alive by using them.

1.9. If you criticize a deceased person, he/she cannot sue you for defamation. If I say Donald Rumsfeld was one of the 9-11 perps (and I do say so), he can’t sue me, and his heirs can’t sue me. Anyway, blaming a Cabinet member, such as Rummy, would also fit under the public official exemptions from defamation lawsuits.

1.10. In this exercise, I consider as fair game, for accusations, any person who was in charge when an event occurred. – just as the Pope could be held responsible (along with many others) for the pedophile priest scandal, since all priests come under his proclaimed authority. If the lethal traffic cop at Lahaina is a state trooper, the governor of Hawaii will have to take ultimate responsibility simply because it occurred in his bailiwick.

1.11. That is not to jump the punishment gun by saying the governor (or a pope) will “do time.” A trial jury can acquit on many grounds. I am only trying to discern the chain of command.

1.12. How about the chain of command within the media?  Within each organ, such as the New York Times, there is clear control from the top. How about a controller external to the media, such as the FCC – federal communications commission?  The Communications Act of 1934 brought the FCC into being. It does not concern itself with lies. It looks after the issuing of licenses to broadcast, the setting up of antennas, the suppression of obscenity, etc. Congress intended the FCC to get away with murder; thus, Congress (like the pope) is the top man.

1.13. Does this let lower men off the hook? Of course not. Consider the reporters who told us that the passport of one of the alleged 9-11 hijackers was picked up on the street near the Twin Towers. Do they think we wouldn’t notice that a passenger on a plane can’t really open the window and throw his passport out.? Anyway, they will say, in their defense against accusations of fraud, that they got the story off the newswire. No, that does not get them off the hook.

[NY Times, page 7, Sept 16,2001, article by David Johnson and Neil A Lewis: “The passport of one hijacker was found today several blocks from the World Trade Center, prompting an intensive search for evidence in the area, Barry W. Mawn, who heads the F.B.I.’s New York office, said. The hijacker was not identified.”]

1.14. Reminder: Here in Part One the question is “Who are the perpetrators of 9-11 and 8-8?” We are looking to identify who did it, not collect evidence or charge anyone with crime. In discussing the editor of the New York Times, the head of the FCC, Congress, or the reporter of the fallen passport. The point is to make us think about the structure of responsibility. Culturally this notion has almost been wiped out. “Anything goes.”

1.15. What about professional fakers? There are thousands of people in the employ of the perpetrators to help give out a false story of what happened, including by claiming that they are victims of such-and-such attack. Personally, I think many of them are mind-controlled to do what they do, but insofar as our identifying all perps of 9-11 and 8-8, there is no reason to leave them out.

1.16. What about ownership? If you own some property, you should feel responsible if it gets put to bad use by someone other than yourself.  In tort law (suits for damages), owners have to accept “strict liability.” Thus if Cindy who owns a carpet cleaning service sends her employee, Doug, to your house and Doug accidentally rips your carpets, she, not he, will have to pay you.  I have not yet heard any relevant ownership aspect of Lahaina.

1.17. What about Larry Silverstein’s ownership of Building Seven? Larry Silverstein famously said, in a 2002 PBS documentary,

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, ‘You know we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

As it seems clear that Larry was involved in a decision to demolish Building 7 (one way or the other), he is clearly ‘eligible’ to our task of identifying any perpetrator.

1.18. How about an ethnic group? Does Larry Silverstein represent all Jews? And therefore are “Jews’ among the identifiable perpetrators? I am opposed to any assigning of guilt to a race, a religion, or a nation-state. When we say “China did such and such,” what do we mean? It’s sloppy to talk like that but our brain is very inclined to work that way. I go postal when someone says “The US invaded Iraq.”  I am the US, as much as the other 330 million are, and I know I did not invade Iraq. But some Americans did make the decision to invade Iraq. They need to be held accountable as individuals. (Don’t believe me? Ask Leviticus.)

1.19. This is a recap of the foregoing 19 items in Section 1, “Modes of Identifying the Perpetrators”:

Focus only on the 8-8 fire in Lahaina not the other Maui fires; focus on WTC and Pentagon, not Shanksville.  Focus only on the day itself, not the tragedies that subsequently emanated from it. Don’t bother with philosophy of society or the morality of government (at this point). But hone in on the structure of responsibility, including within media and FCC. Be cautious about the law of defamation, but public figures are proper targets for criticism. List the low-level reporters and the professional fakers, even if they’ll ultimately get excused. We need low-level persons to help us find higher ones.  The purpose of this identification is to smooth the way for serious focused work on punishing the perpetrators. Don’t get caught in the quagmire of blaming any ethnic or religious groups. Focus on individuals.

Section 2: Association Papers

Now we are in Part One’s Section 2, where we move forward with the list of perpetrators, accomplices, and so forth.  We constructed that list by using public knowledge of what probably happened at Lahaina and at the WTC-plus-Pentagon. For now, we can call the people on our ever-expanding list “the Listees.”

1.20 The plan is to make the Listees talk to us citizens.   Section 1 above stated what we are able to do:

“We, a rational and responsible band of people, can draw up a list of Americans who may be able to answer our questions.  The giving of bullshit answers to our questions, or the refusal to answer, puts the person in the category of Supporters of the perps.”

1.21. The task here is one that would normally be carried out by a government inquiry via the mechanism of summonsing. We won’t have subpoena power but don’t you worry, we have the power of asking. The US brass totally disgraced itself by turning the 9/11 Commission report into an affirmation of the deceitful narrative.

1.22. The inspiration for this Section 2 came from a device that was invented by the colonists of New Hampshire. I found it in a 1976 book edited by Bill Gardiner entitled “Towns against Tyranny.” The tyranny in question was that of King George III.  Residents of New Hampshire were worried that amongst them were some who sided with the British troops close by. So they demanded that each grown man sign a paper to say that he associated with the colonists, not with the monarch.

The paper to sign was called an “Association Paper”. As in “Whom Do You Associate With?” Any man refusing to sign was regarded as a threat and was disarmed.

1.23. We are not quite at the stage of demanding signatures. We first must ask each Listee (reporters, governors, cops, owners, pilots, whatever) to answer our questions. For anyone connected to either 9-11 or 8-8, the opening question could be “Did you know before ‘the big day’ that something bad was going to happen?” Those who can honestly answer ‘Yes’ will then feel more relaxed about answering specific questions.

1.24. I guess almost no one will admit that they knew what would occur on 9-11 or 8-8. After all, the official story is that Muslims did 9-11 and wouldn’t have been likely to share foreknowledge. And the one and only Person who knew what 8-8 would bring was God, since the official story is that the fires were due to natural causes.

1.25. Your question-asking should be absolutely polite, no matter how much you may believe that the person is a full-on perp.  The main thing is to let him/her know that the purpose of the list is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Granted, we are looking for specific answers about this and that. But we are looking to see who won’t cooperate.  That is whom we are going to go after, legally.

1.26. After we have analyzed the answers provided by out Listees, we can announce that the Association Paper drive is about to occur. The Paper itself would look something like a loyalty oath. I realize that loyalty oaths were struck down by the Supreme Court a few decades ago, but those ones were mandatory, by an employer or by the government. Our request for signatures on an Association paper is voluntary.

1.27. I do not have any recommended wording yet. Something along the lines of “I agree that the official story of 9-11 and of 8-8 is unsatisfactory and I will join in a search for the truth. I hereby dissociate myself from any American person or entity that would do such a thing as use covert weapons on Americans.”  (Your suggestions for the wording are welcome, of course.)

1.28. Even if we lack the money to do mailouts or other forms of communication, the word will get around that the Association Papers – created in imitation of the New Hampshire effort to protect patriots – are enjoying a day in the sun.

1.29. This will add force to our plan to punish the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 destruction of buildings with people in them, and the August 8, 2023 manmade fires that caused death and the loss of homes.  To do nothing seems crazy. The punishing of criminals is standard in our society. Why carve out a non-punishment space for the worst of the worst?